Appeal No. 2006-0037
Application No. 09/874,371
view of Yoneda, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
8 and 9, which stand or fall with claim 7, as being unpatentable
over Russell in view of Allemand and the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Russell in
view of Coleman.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and requires the at least one
interior surface of the airplane cabin to comprise decorative
plastic foil wherein the coating is applied to the decorative
plastic foil. Russell, which as indicated above pertains to the
application of thermal control films or coatings to glazings, would
not have suggested a similar application to a decorative plastic
foil in an airplane cabin. Rensch’s disclosure of a decorative
lighting laminate does not cure this deficiency. Thus, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10,
and dependent claims 11 and 12, as being unpatentable over Russell
in view of Rensch.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and further defines the coating
as having a thermal emission factor selected from the range of 0.1
to 0.3 inclusive. Russell’s disclosure of conventional coatings
having emissivities as low as 0.15 and of coatings having infrared
radiation reflectivities of at least 90% would have suggested such
a coating in the context claimed. Accordingly, we shall sustain
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007